Why do people chintz out on scopes?

[Old Dog]

When I was coming up, the wise old dudes always told me, spend the same on a scope as you spent on the rifle. I bought cheap when I was young, got cheap, had a couple hunts ruined.

Cheaper optics are just that: cheap. There's so much good glass available now, I don't understand why the constant requests from guys asking for "what's the best bargain scope out there?" or "best inexpensive optic on the market?...

I've learned the hard way: buy once, cry once.

Why the insistence from those wanting to know what the best cheap scopes are? I'm seeing guys buy $900 (or even more expensive) rifles and putting $299 scopes on them. What's up with this? (I just put a $1200 scope on a $950 rifle, and felt guilty that I hadn't sprung for a better scope.)

Is it the "good enough" culture?

Do we just have a culture now where there's a lot of folks who don't understand, or can't see, the difference between substandard glass and good optics? Are we (our generations) failing to teach those who follow just what constitutes acceptability and quality?

Or is it simply that our economy -- or the job market -- is so bad, a lot of hunters can't save up to buy decent scopes?

 

[hq]

This is very common with a lot of different devices comprising of several components. In the old days people spent half as much on hifi speakers as they had spent on the rest of the system, when a balanced setup would have required to spend double that. Scopes are often seen as a necessary evil, just an accessory instead of a vital component of the setup as a whole.

This doesn't mean you can't get away with a bargain basement scope and be happy - that's exactly what many people do - but once you've had a high-end scope and used it for a while, it's nigh on impossible to go back to mediocre, cheap glass without feeling handicapped and utterly disappointed every time you use it. It's all about not knowing any better, ignorance is a bliss.

I'd kind of love to go back to "pre-redpill" days when I actually thought that Tasco scopes are good for anything else than just mashing potatoes and Redfield "Five Star" was the pinnacle of quality optics. I still have the Redfield as a spare scope (it's actually ok; not good by any means but ok) and a semi-collectible relic.

With a bunch of rifles to scope I've changed my strategy. Whenever I need another, I usually buy a high-end scope for a different rifle and swap them around. Recycling a slightly older quality scope to whatever needs optics has incrementally reduced the number of mediocre scopes on my rifles to only a handful, and upgrading good scopes to better ones will eventually eliminate all of them.

I can't really think of a cheap scope I hadn't later regretted buying. That rarely happens with expensive ones, and only when I realize that magnification range, objective diameter, weight or other factors weren't what I really needed - and whenever that's the case, I recycle it to another rifle where it's just right.

 

[LoonWulf]

I own a couple good scopes, a couple very good for the cost scopes, and a few i consider good solid working scopes....price isnt always a consistent gauge.
My most expensive scope in use is a Zeiss Conquest Hd5, my least either an Athlon Argos HMR, or a Burris FFe1.
In my experience, and to my untrained eye, you can get decent to good optical quality for relatively low cost....very good and above will cost you tho.

Ive owned a pile of really cheap scopes and every one of them has done what ive needed it to. Dosent mean I want them back on guns, but they did do their job.
Equally ive got a dozen or so rifles and simply cant afford even high-middling glass for every one of them. The two that get used the most have the "best" scopes.
One of which is a vx-3i, a scope I consider solid but unimpressive optically for the cost, its other features make it worthwhile and get it a solid "good" rating from me.
Could I afford another 1200 dollar optic id have one on there, but 500 bucks is what i had to spend. If any of my powder burners is gonna kill a scope its that one, so it gets the scope with the best warranty, and lightest weight.

Again thats not to say I think spending more on glass and mounts (I see a surprising number of decent to nice scopes in crap mounts) is ever a bad idea. Sometimes tho good enough, is good enough.

 

[Bartojc]

For a lot of folk they see value buying a rifle for $800, but cannot tell the difference between a $300 scope and a $900 scope. For hunting in MI I'll tell you I do not see value in high end or higher priced scopes. To each their own, but higher priced does not necessarily mean better for the task at hand. As always the answer is it depends. When a person asks what scope should I get, the first question most of us asks is what are you doing with the rifle. There are a plethora of fine choices under the $600 mark for close in under 200 yard hunting.

-Jeff

 

[Rembrandt]

Why do people chintz out on scopes?

Economics and Pride

Not everyone's financial situation can handle higher end glass.....Pride doesn't want to let others know that....what they can afford is elevated to be "just as good" as the higher end glass.

 

[P89DCSS]

A $900 rifle is in the bottom third of the market as is a $200 scope. Both are well matched and the rest is up to the shooter. Why put lipstick on a pig?

 

[jmorris]

Why are there 3 grades of gas sold at pumps?

Some people buy the best because they need it, some buy it because it’s the best besides not being able to discern any difference.

Some buy the cheapest, because it works, some buy it because they can’t tell any difference.

Some buy the middle grade, not sure why, maybe they can’t tell the difference but don’t want to over indulge their engine but don’t want to feel cheap either...

I guess, I just don’t understand why some people make the decisions they do. Doesn’t make them wrong or me right though.

 

[Chuck R.]

I guess, I just don’t understand why some people make the decisions they do. Doesn’t make them wrong or me right though.

I agree and I'll add that I became much happier when I stopped worrying about other's actions and even trying to figure them out.....

 

[hq]

what they can afford is elevated to be "just as good" as the higher end glass.

A very good point. I hate it when it happens (and it does!), but it's only human. Trying to convince oneself that whatever purchase decision they already made is a particularly good deal, much better than it actually is. Nothing wrong with that if it just makes everyone feel good about themselves, unless that dissonance is confused with reality and is accepted as objective facts.

Some products are, in fact, excellent value and far better purchases than others. To get an idea which they might be, independent scientific reviews are pretty much the only source of reliable, unbiased information. Too bad that products that shine in reviews like these are often sold out quickly and subject to a price increase in the near future. Supply and demand are powerful factors.

 

[hq]

A $900 rifle is in the bottom third of the market as is a $200 scope. Both are well matched and the rest is up to the shooter. Why put lipstick on a pig?

To avoid being potentially outperformed by a $500 rifle with a $600 scope in real-world situations, perhaps?

 

[bearcreek]

What's up with this?

Most people very rarely use their guns for anything other than leaning in a corner. For that, a $200 scope works just as well as a $1500 scope. This can also explain the stories about $299 scopes "lasting for years".

 

[skeeterfogger]

There are a lot more scope makers now. Many of the older makers have drastically changed there build to include using cheaper to manufacture parts but still maintain price to consumer.
I've had a $90 Centerpoint off the rack at WM on a rifle pushing 5 years now. Have taken deer out to 350 yards. Most combo deals scopes are not high end for sure. Worse I had was Bushnell Sporter, newest a 3x9-30 actually isn't bad but not as good as my very old My steel tube Weaver. Barska has some dependable scopes. Bottom line is with a wider selection there is no need to break the bank.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

$299 will get you a pretty good scope.

 

[GBExpat]

Is it the "good enough" culture?

In my case it sure is. I spend only enough to acquire the equipment that will reliably get the task accomplished.

 

[Walkalong]

Some people really can’t tell great glass from good glass, so are not likely tobpay for it. Some people can see it, but don’t appreciate it enough to pay for it. Some simply cannot afford the higher end stuff. If you don’t have, you don’t have it.

Even my best scopes have better options, but my budget is what it is.

 

[armedwalleye]

I think for some folks, they've spent everything they could on a gun, and a scope and accessories are afterthoughts. Secondly, I think a lot depends on what you're doing with it. If you hunt in the woods, short range shots, and are not pushing the limits of a scope, a relatively inexpensive scope will serve the purpose. If you're pushing the limits, though, hunt in lower light situations, longer distances, higher elevations, and otherwise testing the limits of a scope, you need all you can afford and maybe more.

In broad daylight, short range situations, a $300 scope will return similar results to a $1200 scope. It's the extremes that offer the better opportunities for a true comparison.

 

[WestKentucky]

We have learned a lot about cost of products over the years. Cost is not always indicative of quality, and country of origin isn’t either. Used to be if it was made in China it was junk. Hong Kong a small step up. Several more steps up to made in USA and you had the best or among the best made products available. But American labor is expensive, and foreign labor is cheaper. Tooling is cheaper to make overseas as well. So it’s all about finding the company who spends enough to get better quality at a cheaper price.

And besides, if a scope fails you miss a deer. If a gun fails your missing an eye. In that light, of your on a budget, where does your money go? Now specifically looking at high dollar rifles, I would expect to see a high dollar scope, because most high dollar rifles are truly no better than cheap rifles, they are just prettier, so as a pretty setup you can spend a ton on visual appeal without improving quality. I will pay for quality, I will not pay for pretty.

 

[chicharrones]

$299 will get you a pretty good scope.

Yeah it will.

Makes me think of my younger days and hunting with "cheap" guns like a Marlin 336 or SKS, both with iron sights. Non-magnified eyeballs were good enough for 100 yard shots.

Makes me also think of all the young eyes these days that have a $125.00 4x or 3-9x scope mounted on their rifle. What a huge jump in vision assistance that is over using iron sights at that 100 yards and a bit further.

Now, if we're talking older eyes in the head of a person that has improved their income through their life as would be expected and can afford what hunting costs these days . . .

But back to myself, my best investment in optics is always, always, always a good pair of glasses with a fresh prescription. When my prescription is out of date, it affects my view through any type of optic to some degree.

 

[hq]

Like I've described before, it's not fun to have a $300 scope crap on you on a five figure, two-week African safari. Been there, unfortunately. Once bitten, twice shy, possibly, but that was the last cheap(ish) scope I've bought since. By a good margin.

 

[Stevel]

While I've heard that adage for 20+ years, I think things have changed. Modern low and midrange scopes have improved dramatically in the last 20 years. Both in structural durability and lens quality.

Really the scope is (should be...) used for 15-30 seconds to place your crosshairs on the game before the shot. Otherwise binoculars are far better to search for and see things like antlers.

 

[stevebla]

You can buy a Vortex Optics Viper Rifle Scope 4-12x 40mm Side Focus Dead-Hold BDC Reticle Matte for $249 at Midway. Good scope lifetime warranty. Three hundred bills will get you a damn good scope if you shop around. I am rat holing money for my next scope to get well past $300.

 

[BreechFace]

Depends on the needs of the user. If one is only going to be shooting at a max of 200 yards on deer sized or larger animals, one doesn't need ultimate clarity; but I will say they should pick a scope that can take abuse. I will say that the low light transmission of lower end scopes are something to pay attention to as well.

There are A LOT of game animals taken at distances under 100 yards. An overbuilt scope with mediocre glass will get the job done as well as a $2,000 Nightforce in that scenario; which happens to be the scenario a lot of hunters find themselves in each year. Especially back east where long shots are very much far and few between.

I just bought a Leupold FXII 2.5x20 Ultralight for around $300 new with Leupold rings and am putting it on a $1,000 firearm do I expect to be disappointed due to its relatively low cost? Not in the least.

Do I buy cheap glass? Well, cheap (as far as cost is concerned) is a relative term. I would guess that I spend $200-300 above the average user for scopes, but in all honesty I'm a firm believer that above the $500-600 range in scopes and the returns diminish really fast on performance. Not to say I don't have scopes above that price range but they are far and few between.

 

[chicharrones]

Like I've described before, it's not fun to have a $300 scope crap on you on a five figure, two-week African safari. Been there, unfortunately. Once bitten, twice shy, possibly, but that was the last cheap(ish) scope I've bought since. By a good margin.

Yessir, and that's a totally different game than someone driving a couple hours away from home for a 100 yard shot on a goat sized deer.

 

[BreechFace]

Really the scope is (should be...) used for 15-30 seconds to place your crosshairs on the game before the shot. Otherwise binoculars are far better to search for and see things like antlers.

Agreed, and one shouldn't be pointing a rifle at an unknown target, glass the target with binos and confirm things before scoping for the potential shot.

 

[BreechFace]

Like I've described before, it's not fun to have a $300 scope crap on you on a five figure, two-week African safari. Been there, unfortunately. Once bitten, twice shy, possibly, but that was the last cheap(ish) scope I've bought since. By a good margin.

All who have gone on an African Safari, please raise your hands... I'm not trying to be smart, and I'm really glad that you've been on African Safaris, would be an awesome experience, however like @chicharrones stated totally different animal (pun intended). If I were spending $20,000+ (travel, tags, PH fees, room and board) on an African Safari my rifle and glass combo probably would be in the $5,000+ range.